ABS248-Lindsay Clancy Wants A NOT GUILTY Verdict Without A New Trial - The Andrew Branca Show

Andrew Branca dives deep into a labyrinthine courtroom battle where the defense seeks a required finding of not guilty—a legal maneuver that forces the judge to enter a verdict without a new trial. The episode unpacks the procedural saga: a denied motion under Rule 25, a second defense attorney, Martin Weinberg, stepping in to argue double‑jeopardy, and a relentless push to bifurcate the trial into separate guilt and insanity phases. Branca explains how Massachusetts law treats insanity like self‑defense, demanding a concession of the act while still arguing lack of criminal responsibility.The host breaks down the standards that govern directed verdicts, citing Jackson v. Virginia and the Lattimore precedent to illustrate why mere record evidence isn’t enough. He argues that the prosecution must present evidence that a rational jury could find each essential element beyond a reasonable doubt, not just a vague evidentiary trail. Branca also calls for a Bowden instruction, urging the court to let jurors infer reasonable doubt from the glaring gaps in the government’s case.Expert testimony becomes a focal point as Branca highlights Dr. Philip Resnick and Dr. Ziesel’s unequivocal diagnoses of postpartum psychosis, contrasting their findings with the prosecution’s failure to meet the Jackson‑Lattimore burden. He questions the forensic inconsistencies—missing blood spatter, absent pill crushers, and unexplained shoe removal—to underscore the lack of corroboration required under Massachusetts law.Throughout, Branca maintains a bold, unapologetic tone, positioning the defense’s request as a litmus test for the integrity of the criminal justice system. Listeners are left with a clear picture of why a required finding of not guilty is not just a procedural footnote but a critical safeguard against wrongful conviction when the evidence collapses under rigorous legal standards.

Categories: Law